 Stakeholder mapping involves mapping out the various individuals or organizations that have a part in the system we wish to change. Stakeholders have a stake in the outcomes to the organization, and thus an interest in shaping events according to their stake. With stakeholder mapping, we are asking who are the individuals or organizations that have an influence in determining the pattern and outcomes of the system, and who are influenced by it. If we take something like the energy system, we will see many actors such as regulators, policymakers, incumbent providers, startups, engineering companies, etc. Each will have something to gain or lose depending on the outcome, which gives them a stake and also a desire to shape that outcome in a particular way. Often, systems over time evolve towards a state of equilibrium between these different stakeholders' interests and influence. The objective of analyzing the field in this way is to understand the formal and informal structures that have led to the current situation and to examine which structures and behaviors are currently impeding or could enable the change process. Organizations are composites of beliefs, rules, incentives, and physical resources, and we need to think about and map them out along these various dimensions. To map out the system's stakeholders, we need to define the scope of the project and system, create a list of stakeholders who form part of the system, determine the influence of the actors, which members are influential, important, or have potential. Identify their importance according to different dimensions of influence, for example, resources, decision making, leadership, etc. Place the stakeholders on the map, scaling them according to their level of importance. Map out the flows between them. This could be a financial exchange, physical goods, communication, trust, influence, etc. Now step back and look at the map from the perspective of the different actors involved. To get any form of organization, people have to communicate. Thus, the way that people are connected is critical to the way that organizations operate, what gets said, who has a say, who hears what, etc. A society or organization without electronic broadcast media is very different from one with. And a society with nonlinear networked communication is again very different from one based upon linear flows of communication. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message, positing that a medium itself, rather than the content it carries, should be the primary focus of study. He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role, not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself. Our existing institutional structures that are centralized and vertical are a product of linear communications, where information flows into the center, is processed, and sent back out for executing upon. Without information flowing in different directions, it would be very difficult to change this. Nonlinear networked forms of communication now make possible new forms of organization via the production and dissemination of information. This can be a powerful lever for systems change as we have and already are witnessing. The introduction of social networking technologies into many societies with brittle political systems is now having a real impact, as people can have their voices heard and start to organize, peer to peer. It is when people come together that they feel empowered, and we now have new ways to come together via the internet. Mapping out the flows of information is an important first step to understanding how the organization works, and at the same time, what possibilities are there for changing those flows of information to change the structure of the system. Systems change requires a strong analysis of power and the actors involved, a mapping of power, allies, and opponents. Who is with you? Who is against you? Who are your blockers? What are they in it for? Why might these unusual suspects be allies? An analysis of power will not only illuminate what is holding a system in place, but can also reveal key levers for transforming power and igniting systems change, often through the most unexpected collaborations. Systemic change almost always involves changes in power dynamics. It reveals new forms of power and challenges the status quo. In such a case, conflict may be a sign of progress and should be expected. Power can be defined in many ways. Here, we will simply define it as the ability to make decisions that will be implemented. The question is, who gets to make what decisions and what are the rules of the game? Nurturing an ecosystem requires a deep awareness of power. Who has it? What kind? Who does not? And we need to understand the power distribution, not just in the abstract, but in practice. We need to be clear about the context within which we are talking about power. Someone who generally has a lot of power in the system may not have a lot when it comes to a specific issue. Power mapping refers to a set of tools and processes that help us analyze power relationships to develop a strategy for creating change. It helps clarify leverage points and relationships that can influence decision makers. Likewise, will help us to understand what coalitions building strategies we might need to build. Power mapping is a visual tool used by social advocates to identify the best individuals to target to promote social change. It reveals available avenues of influence and connections between these influences. The power mapping process entails the use of a visual tool to conceptualize the sphere of a person or group's influence. Start by listing the different actors and creating categories for them. To fill out a power map, we want to create a sticky for each individual or organization that has the influence to make decisions within the system of interest and possibly related systems. We need to identify the different members and how primary are they to the decision-making process. Primary targets make a direct decision. Secondary targets are those who influence the people making decisions. It is important to remember that within any given system, there will be both formal and informal structures of influence and power. The formal dimension is not the only one.